Second Amendment

[The Skarzs]

Tannerite is an explosive that is legal to buy, and while it is not as powerful as others, it is still explosive.
You can make gunpowder without having it buy much of anything.
Nitroglycerin can also be made at home, though legally you really should not give out the recipe.
Propane, petroleum, and other fossil fuels can also be used to devastating effect.

[Rusvul]

   (The following is my opinion.)

   See, here's the thing. It's entirely possible that shootings would turn to bombings. But people still use guns to kill other people, and that's not acceptable. Just because you can't fix a problem doesn't mean that there's no point trying. It's a lot easier to shoot someone than it is to bomb them. In America it wouldn't work at all to ban all guns for everyone, but there's certainly steps that ought to be taken to restrict their purpose by those most likely to use them for ill.

[The Skarzs]

Someone who bought a gun three years ago might not be the same person they were at the present time. There is no way of knowing whether someone will or will not use their gun in a safe way in the future if they are perfectly fine at the time of purchase.
Background checks can't work for everyone because they check things that happened before, not at the present. I know a man who was in jail for several years, but having known him now for about eight, if I had kids I would trust him with them, despite background checks suggesting that he is more likely to commit a crime because of that jail time.
Similarly, an old man I knew for about six years, who was in seemingly fine condition of both body and mind, ended up stabbing his daughter to death last year. Up until that point, no one would have suspected him to be capable or willing to do such a thing.

[Rusvul]

   Be that as it may, those are specific cases. More careful background checks won't fix everything, but it's a step in a right direction. If a law like that can stop even a few would-be gunners, it's worth it.

[The Skarzs]

A lot of shooters aren't very old, though, so they wouldn't necessarily have anything that might say they would have a tendency for such violence.

[Rusvul]

Again: A system doesn't have to filter out every possible criminal in order to be worth something.

[DanielofRedwall]

Obviously I'm quite detached from this whole debate, but if there's one thing Australians can maybe take a "moral high ground" on worldwide, it's our gun control (and considering our human rights record, there's very little else), so I thought maybe this third party perspective could add something. I acknowledge I may not have total understanding of the cultural differences and implications of the debate, but I thought it'd be worth adding an example of how gun control laws worked amazingly here. Ask just about any Australian about gun control laws and they'll say that (a) we did the right thing and (b) America is crazy (sorry folks ). It's probably the one thing Australians can almost unanimously agree on and feel proud about. I don't want to seem aggressive, so I'll try reserve such judgements. (By the way, if you're okay with dealing with some pretty vulgar language, type in "Jim Jefferies gun control" on YouTube for a video with some pretty convincing arguments delivered with humour that I may try summarise on here later without the obscenities. I won't put a link in case an accidental unprepared click leads to offence, but I'd highly recommend people who aren't hurt by extreme language.) Some of you may be aware of our gun control history, but for those that aren't...

In April 1996 in a town called Port Arthur in the state of Tasmania, Australia suffered what was the largest scale mass shooting in world history until the recent shooting in Orlando. 35 people were killed and 23 were injured. Following this, our (conservative) government of the time passed strict gun control legislation (and ensured state governments passed mirror laws), which included requiring a license to hold a gun, age restrictions etc. This was considered political suicide at the time- it was a very unpopular decision, and state premiers who participated in passing legislation (for example, Queensland) practically lost elections on the issue. In the 18 years before Port Arthur, we had 13 mass shootings, so it wasn't an uncommon event. Since these laws, we have not had a single one. Not only this, but the overall rate of firearm violence has decreased dramatically, and the suicide by gun rate has also dropped dramatically. I think that's really saying something about the effectiveness of gun control laws. And Australia is not an outlier here.

By the way, it's still legal to own a gun in Australia (pretty much every farmer has one), the screening process and laws on carrying and keeping one is just much more rigorous to ensure they don't get in the wrong hands. There's also a national database keeping track of who owns a gun, and any changes to what they carry must be notified to the authorities. Also, as far as I'm aware, assault rifles and basically anything beyond hand guns are outright banned for non-military folks. Here's Wikipedia's article on our laws.

I know that there are valid arguments against gun control, and again I don't pretend to have a total understanding of the complexities of the issue, but from my perspective I look at the frequency of gun-related tragedies in the US and just feel gutted that they're so preventable but little happens. I'll also just say that I tend to be more left-wing on issues, so there may be some bias here, but I think the evidence does help support my argument. I really hope I'm not coming across as demeaning or anything like that (if this is taken badly I will likely edit it heavily), I just wanted to add my own thoughts on the problem. (In case you can't tell, I'm in the "lover of political debate" camp. It's where I thrive.)

By the way, I'll be keeping an eye on this thread to make sure things don't get out of hand, but so far the conversation seems respectful enough.

[Wylder Treejumper]

In America, the issue is more complicated because it is a Constitutional right, and the Founding Fathers recognized the practical right to revolution. Do I hope to see that right ever used? I do not. But, it is always a possibility, and a revolution must have weapons.

[DanielofRedwall]

In America, the issue is more complicated because it is a Constitutional right, and the Founding Fathers recognized the practical right to revolution. Do I hope to see that right ever used? I do not. But, it is always a possibility, and a revolution must have weapons.

For sure, I recognise that this as a legitimate argument and if that ever happened then I'd probably support the revolution (depending on the circumstances). At the same time, though, when the US constitution was written technology was not as advanced as it was now, and I think laws need to be updated to meet modern times. Muskets were still the thing, which can do a lot less damage than semi-automatic assault rifles. Also, the government has drones and tanks now, so it would be pretty difficult to overthrow them now. I definitely think gun laws can change without nullifying the second amendment, it just takes proper background checks and restrictions on certain classes of firearm to make a world of difference. People can still have guns, just make it harder for the wrong people to get them.

And one more thing: amendments can change, like the amendment on the prohibition of alcohol did. Hence why they're called "amendments".

[Wylder Treejumper]

The baby of liberals and the blood enemy of conservatives in the US: a repeal of the Second Amendment. Now that, my friend, is dangerous ground. You would not get very far.

[The Skarzs]

I'm pretty sure if there was a revolution that began in the US, like another civil war, the armed forces would take no part of it because they are just as much citizens as the rest of us, and should not as any single unit move against their own brothers and sisters. Even if the government wants them to.

I would like to note that bows can be fired three to four times more quickly than muskets, and are equally capable of killing, even if they are slower than a semi-automatic.

[Lady Ashenwyte]

I'm pretty sure if there was a revolution that began in the US, like another civil war, the armed forces would take no part of it because they are just as much citizens as the rest of us, and should not as any single unit move against their own brothers and sisters. Even if the government wants them to.

I would like to note that bows can be fired three to four times more quickly than muskets, and are equally capable of killing, even if they are slower than a semi-automatic.

The difference is that bows take years of rigorous training to use them well, and an average person would be able to use a musket capably within a few months.

[Wylder Treejumper]

Whether they should and whether they would are two different things entirely, though. Furthermore, it all depends on the idea of legitimacy. The Civil War could be considered a revolution, but I wouldn't say it was for legitimate reasons. If the Armed Forces didn't consider the revolution legitimate, bingo that's another Civil War.

[LT Sandpaw]

The whole idea that gun control will stop mass shootings is kind of vetoed when you consider that France has some of the strictest gun control laws in Europe and over a hundred people got shot not too long ago. If someone really wants to shoot people, no matter what country they're in, or how strict the gun laws are they are going to be able to get their hands on a gun if they try hard enough.

Now I've been to some places. *CoughArkansasCough* in the US where you can go to the local drug store and buy yourself some hunting rifles. And not only that but I've been to hundreds of pawn shops that sell guns left and right without hardly a care in the world.

  I do believe that background checks should be mandatory, and, they ought to be good background checks, but let's face it they wont stop impulse shooters. Plus everything resides on how good the background check is, and whether the person checking can be trusted.

The problem is kind of unsolvable, no matter what law, restriction or enforcement is set in place you're not going to solve the problem, if anything you'll make it worse. People have a right to defend their homes, and if a solution comes up that allows them to do so, but doesn't infringe on their other rights then I'd back it full heartedly.

[The Skarzs]

I believe Sand is right when he says that the problem is pretty well unsolvable in our current situation. There are too many reasons the current "solutions" can't fully work.